The Aussie Air Negotiation - Case Study Example

Individual Rеflесtivе Еssаy Name Institution Course Tutor Date Introduction Self-reflection is the conduct of writing or taking about personal experience about something or an event. In the negotiation, individual reflection entails saying how the negotiation process progressed according to one’s judgment and as per personal expectations. In the essay, I will reflect on the Aussie Air negotiation’s success and how the negotiation was conducted. I will reflect on the claim of negotiation’s value and the tactics applied to advance the negotiator’s interests. I will discuss about how I created claim in the negotiation. In addition, I will reflect on how we related with other parties throughout the negotiation, how we joined a coalition and the cognitive biases among the negotiating parties. I also reflect on my emotions and those of the other parties and how they influenced the negotiation. Negotiation successful The Aussie Air negotiation was successful because we managed to come into agreement regarding the team management, stock price, contract control, jobs available in Australia, and the share control issues between the Aussie Air and the DUA. We managed to break down the barriers to agreement between all the negotiation parties. We handled the negotiation with respect to each other since we listened to each other’s opinion, handled the practice with preparedness, showed curiosity to getting a solution, controlled our personal emotions, and we understood what we wanted to achieve, thus working towards a successful outcome (Amanatullah and Tinsley 2013, 260). I knew that the negotiation was successful because the parties had an agreement at the end of the exercise and we managed to get a solution to the underlying issue. The team was well informed and ready to conduct the negotiation; it cooperated, and respected each party’s opinions. We were able to achieve the negotiation’s objectives and the parties’ interests were considered with rationality and fairness. The issue of ownership of the company was effectively handled. Every party was contented and happy at the end of the negotiation exercise because we managed to arrive to a win-win solution (Amanatullah and Tinsley 2013, 264). We made the final decision with rationality to enhance parties’ satisfaction from the exercise’s outcome. I had gathered all the required information regarding the parties’ interests and applied the essentials for achievement of a perfect solution. Claim value I claimed value in this negotiation whereby I managed to share the amount of value available to the negation parties. I requested all the parties to state their interests regarding the Aussie Air management, ownership, stock price, contract control, and labor issues. To ensure balancing the interests, I explored all the alternatives whereby I understood the BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). I also considered the WATNA (worst alternative to a negotiated agreement) and the plan b to the solution. We settled the stock price issue after bargaining with other parties and through the BATNA, it was possible for us decide on how the company would be owned and managed (Van De Kieft, Jonker and Van Riemsdijk 2011, 124). I assessed all the alternatives whereby I ensure that the DUA and the shareholders agreed on the issue of cash transfer price per every outstanding share. For privatization of the Aussie Air, we made sure that its 51% was owned by the Australian sources. The negotiation stage was efficiently set for success and I made the initial offer, which was later reciprocated by other parties. To advance my interests, I applied the following tactics; minimization of the value of the rest of the concessions, made commitments to agree to the most constructive agreement, started high, concealed information, conceded slowly, and I was ready to outwait my opponent. I also argued forcefully for the principles that involve encouraging settlements and exaggerated on the value of my concessions. Create value I created value in this negotiation through conducting an interest-based bargaining among all the parties. We managed to acquire means of identifying the things to share, such as the stock price, share control, the company’s ownership and management, and supply of labor in the company. The process enhanced formation of joins gains or joint value since both sides managed to improve through the new development. I focused on the interests of the disputing parties, shared all the information about Aussie Air and DUA partnership, and encouraged communication among all the parties. Through an open communication, we were able to find some shared interests within us (Van De Kieft et al. 2011, 126). It was possible for all the parties to acquire what each wanted in the negotiation process since the DUA managed to take control of the jobs offered to the management team and the image of the Australian company was efficiently retained. The negation outcome was win-win solution between the parties. I maximized the joined gains through ensuring that there was retention of team management, the company’s leadership, labor supply, and ensured that the interests of the Aussie Air shareholders were met. The interests of the company’s workers were also represented and were supported with proper discussion that made sure that they were all satisfied with their work. Relationship with other parties In the negotiation process, my relationship with the other parties seemed to change from one step to the other until the end of the negotiation where we had an agreement (Borch and Mérida 2013, 97). At the beginning, we were in conflict because every party though that the negotiation practice would favor one’s side. After raising all the interests and putting them on the table for discussion, we managed to reach to the shared interests. We also bargained on the interests that had differences among the parties with rationality and fairness and ensured that every party was satisfied by the ending decision. This made my relationship with the other parties to improve. After getting the joint value, the issue led to complete change to our relationship where we agreed and focused in achieving the negotiation objectives together. We developed trust to one another and this enhanced making of the optimal decision about the company ownership and the team management, as well as the stock price, which was the major concern of the Aussie Air shareholders (Amanatullah and Tinsley 2013, 266). We all knew our interests and the negotiation objectives and this made the parties to listen to each other’s opinions, which improved our relationship. At the end of the negotiation, I was in good terms with all the other parties because we managed to achieve a win-win solution since no side was favored. A coalition I joined a coalition with other parties in this negotiation because of wanting to achieve the set objectives. The disputing parties presented their interests in a manner that required proper understanding on how to handle and settle them and enable satisfaction. The parties had unequal power levels and there was potential of having some future interactions. Also majority of the parties seemed to be committed about reaching to an effective solution. I was also required to try to save the Aussie Air stock market from deteriorating by ensuring have an agreement on the applicable stock price (Borch and Mérida 2013, 97). The issue raised by the Aussie Air shareholders about the fear of losing their shares because of privatization of the company made me to join a coalition with the other parties to enhance their investment opportunity in the company. By joining a coalition, the negotiation was likely to reach to the expected solution. I strengthened the coalition by ensuring creation of a joint value with consideration of all the parties’ interests. I assessed the issues under negotiation and the conditions required there to be an agreement between the parties and worked towards enabling them at the end of the negotiation. I also applied the CEO position to present positive reaction to the public opinion and show much concern to DUA to ensure the continued partnership with Aussie Air. There were rules to be followed in the coalition. Cognitive biases In this negotiation, I realized to be influenced by some cognitive biases between me and the other parties. We were not acting rationally as negotiators. Making the final decisions was a problem in that every party had different interests (Schweinsberg, Ku, Wang and Pillutla 2012, 227). When trying to make the final decision about the team management, our differences made it take time because the parties required being enabled to understand why the team would be managed in the decided way. We needed having a joint decision, but the differences affected the negotiation process where rationality and fairness was very efficient to have the joint agreement. The decision about the company’s ownership affected the reasonableness of our coordination in the meeting. The parties competed in having their interests favored in the negotiation and this issue made the negotiation exercise problematic. Confirmation of the parties’ satisfaction with the final decision and the information supporting the shared interests was also a bias that affected the process of reaching to an agreement. To ensure success of the negotiation, I used the biases and looked for their solution, which helped in the absolute optimization (Caputo 2013, 380). I also focused on the parties’ preferences and concerns to make the correct judgment. The selection of information about the company’s leadership was poorly done and this led to delayed decision-making, but I managed this by being aggressive. Emotions In this negotiation, I observed some serious emotions between me and the other parties. The emotions include; fear and anger. I sometimes could fear raising an opinion because of not being sure if the other parties would support it or reject it. The other parties were angry when I raised the issue of the company’s ownership because the shareholders were not ready to let the company be privatized. The fact that some parties insisted on explanation of how the share price was affected by the government’s ownership led to other parties being annoyed and the issue required me to come in to settle their differences. These emotions influenced the negotiation in that it took much time to reach into some agreement. I managed these emotions by avoiding being emotional, being rational when considering the parties’ interests, and remaining cool. I also tried avoiding getting anger when some parties could quarrel over an issue (Schweinsberg et al. 2012, 230). I held my emotions when the parties disagreed on the shared interests and solutions associated with the management of the Aussie Air company and the job control from the DUA. Ethical dilemmas In this negotiation, I faced ethical dilemmas such as trust and honest, as well as transparency. The arties lacked trust for one another and this affected the openness of the negotiation process because it was hard for them to agree in various issues. The issue of job supply by the DUA was also affected by the problem of lack of honesty from the responsible personnel (Saarni 2011, 58). To solve the ethical dilemmas I ensured that I developed positive thoughts about other parties and enabled the other parties to be fair to one another when raising their interests. I also rationalized the ethical dilemmas to ensure that they did not result to negative impacts to the negotiation practice. Conclusion The Aussie Air negotiation was successful because we managed to reach to a rational decision and efficient solution. I claimed value and created value in the negotiation. My relationship with other parties improved in the process of negotiation. I formed a coalition to ensure focus to the negotiation objectives and I strengthened it through setting rules that were followed by every party. There were cognitive biases associated with confirmation and competition among the parties. Some of the emotions experienced in the negotiation were anger and fear. References Amanatullah, E.T. and Tinsley, C.H., 2013. Ask and ye shall receive? How gender and status moderate negotiation success. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6(4), pp.253-272. Borch, K. and Mérida, F., 2013. 5. Dialogue in foresight: consensus, conflict and negotiation. Participation and Interaction in Foresight: Dialogue, Dissemination and Visions, p.97. Caputo, A., 2013. A literature review of cognitive biases in negotiation processes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 24(4), pp.374-398. Saarni, C., 2011. Emotional competence and effective negotiation: the integration of emotion understanding, regulation, and communication. In Psychological and Political Strategies for Peace Negotiation (pp. 55-74). Springer New York. Schweinsberg, M., Ku, G., Wang, C.S. and Pillutla, M.M., 2012. Starting high and ending with nothing: The role of anchors and power in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), pp.226-231. Van De Kieft, I., Jonker, C.M. and Van Riemsdijk, M.B., 2011. Explaining negotiation: Obtaining a shared mental model of preferences. In Modern Approaches in Applied Intelligence (pp. 120-129). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Read More